Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-03-Speech-2-332"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030603.10.2-332"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I am disappointed by this debate as it seems like a hotchpotch of national interests and I am hearing very little about Europe, but rather a defence of the conservation of resources which responds entirely to each of the parties’ own interests.
Finally, Commissioner, I would like you to clarify whether we are discussing the first proposal you made or the proposal which is already in the Council and on which there is an agreement, as certain Members have said. If that is the case, I would ask that this Parliament be consulted again and if it is not, we will use all the rights this House enjoys to see that it is.
In any event, the political decisions adopted in this House will have to be respected, but I would insist that what has been debated here today has been a hotchpotch of national interests, unfortunately for fishing, and that is not something which I, as an MEP, wanted to see. And the Commission is not playing the leading role it should playing in terms of a conservation of resources in the sensitive areas of Europe which affects every one of the Member States in an equal manner.
I believe that the Commission must play a significant role in defending European interests. Everyone is looking after number one, and that is not what we want to see.
I would like to congratulate the three rapporteurs, or rather the four, I would like to congratulate Mr Ó Neachtain, because he produced the report – Mr Stevenson’s name now only appears as chairman, despite the fact that the amendments presented to the plenary come from the UEN Group, although they have also been signed by Members with national interests.
I will say nothing about the report by Mr Fava since we are all going to accept it and I believe there is little controversy about it. With regard to the reports by Mr Hudghton and Mr Stevenson, I would like to say that I support what has emerged from the Committee on Fisheries, which is our specialised and competent committee. What subsequently emerges from the politics in the plenary is another issue.
We support Mr Hudghton’s report. I would simply like to say that on the issue of the regional consultative committees, I agree with him, that they are consultative. We must listen to the regions, we must listen to the sectors. We have said this in Parliament and it has been said in the Council, but of course Parliament and the Council will then have the final word, because consultations are obligatory, but there is a common policy and common European bodies which must take these decisions after listening to the sectors in all regions.
With regard to the Stevenson report, there are two fundamental principles: firstly, the conservation of resources; secondly, equality of Member States. They are two principles which the Commission must accept. We have scrupulous respect for the conservation measures. We want a genuine sustainable fisheries policy, responsible fishing, with all the necessary measures, including fishing bans. If there are areas in which there are reproductions, of juvenile and restocking fish, there must not be any fishing, nobody fishes. And that is the way to create healthy biological bans. This must be made absolutely clear. These sensitive areas must therefore be sensitive. But this must be balanced with a second principle, which is the need for the Community principle of not discriminating against any State for reasons of nationality and therefore all these conservation measures must be taken in a manner that affects everyone, not benefiting some and harming others; that would be an anti-Community measure and would end up in the courts, the Court of Justice in this case.
I hope that this is not necessary so that the Member States, which have actually come to the end of their transitional period of 17 years – the longest transitional period in the history of the European Union – whose rights have been restricted for these 17 years, can now accede under equal conditions. The conservation measures must therefore affect everybody. There are measures, as the Commissioner knows, which consist of limiting the ACRs, fishing days, the capacity of fleets, all of which are selective technical measures. There are many measures, but they must clearly be applied equally to everybody.
It is discriminatory, Commissioner, because the period intended to be used as a reference is 1998-2002, years during which there were two countries – Spain and Portugal – whose rights were restricted or limited. They are therefore not operating under equal conditions if we take that period as a reference.
We are naturally against the amendments which will be presented tomorrow by the UEN Group and the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, because we believe there are other ways to conserve resources without discriminating against certain States."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples